It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 42
96
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
hello

here is something :

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

-Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216




posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Evolution is falsified by this human leg bone of 300 million years ago:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 

How much source criticism are you practising while linking to that blog? Contrary to the popular belief, not everything you see in the internet is true



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Can you really disprove the article about the 300 million year old human leg bone?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 


Well, given that the author of this article hasn't proven anything...what do you expect us to say? He makes a lot of claims, but does not post the official analysis by the university that dated the remains...I wonder why


Until he posts hard evidence, like a radiometric dating report, it's nothing but claims. And you have to forgive us for being sceptical, a ton of the article on that blog are just plain hogwash.



God created 432 trillion humans and 60 trillion stars (or star-like heavenly bodies) over 40 million billion years ago. The goal of the creation was to achieve higher harmony.


First of all, the official number of stars (calculated by the Yale university) is 100 sextillion...in fact, they just tripled that number in the most recent estimate to account for brown dwarfs. LINK

Also, the estimated age of our universe as we know it is 13.75bil years...not 40 million billion years...even if the 40 figure sounds like a nice round number
(LINK)

And lastly, if his figures were correct...and they're clearly not...assuming there's 1 habitable planet per star (also not the case), there would on average live 7.2 trillion people on each planet. To put that into perspective, and show how ridiculous that figure is, there's currently less than 7bil people on earth. Imagine if 1000 times more people lived on earth, we wouldn't have the resources. Also, before you say "there might be bigger planets"...if the planets would be large enough to host that many humans, its gravity would be so strong, humans couldn't live there...or have evolved there.

We can completely debunk his "god" theory because he clearly pulled those figures out of his ass...and they're demonstrably wrong. Unfortunately, we can't do the same with his bone fossils as he hasn't post any of the evidence that would allow us to do so. No radiometric dating reports, no peer reviews and independent analysis reports...just his word. And given how wrong he is with his god theory, I wouldn't trust his word too much


By the way, we have found remains of hominid species that are 3mil years old...but they are NOT homo sapiens like us. They were an ancestor of today's humans.



The centerpiece of a treasure trove of new fossils, the skeleton—assigned to a species called Ardipithecus ramidus—belonged to a small-brained, 110-pound (50-kilogram) female nicknamed "Ardi."


In case you're wondering, Ardi was 47 inches tall: LINK[editby ]edit on 2-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Why do you insist on a radiometric dating report? How do you know there was any dating report?
Why do you presume there should be other animals now living on other galaxies/planets?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by linliangtai
Why do you insist on a radiometric dating report? How do you know there was any dating report?
Why do you presume there should be other animals now living on other galaxies/planets?


Because a radiometric dating report is the only thing that would prove the age of the fossil. And I hope there was a dating report because otherwise he pulled his timeline figures out of his ass...like he did when it comes to his "god theory"


And it makes sense to assume we're not the only life form in the universe given the huge number of stars/planets. However, contrary to your source, I don't walk around and claim there's 432 trillion humans spread out in the universe without providing any objective evidence



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ghost
So, Why are there certine defects, such as albinoism (the lack of pigment in skin and hair), that show up over and over, both in nature and in the human population.


(180 degree spin)

If we're made in God's image, why do we have defects?

Forget albinosim... our spins are terrible at keeping us upright without being prone to injury (among serveral issues with the structure of the human body).


The first man that was created had no defects, but when sin came in, it opened the door for anything negative to come in and tamper with what God had made, even the ground was changed where thorns, weeds and the like appeared.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


And your objective evidence for that is?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


And your objective evidence for that is?


Look again at the question he asked it was not based on science, therefore my answer was not based in science. according to a scientist, random chance can create a human cell,so why can't a scientist create one ,since they know how humans were created?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


So wait...if scientists lack a certain knowledge, your auto-response is "god"?


You should really look up the definition of "god of the gaps" as your answer is a prime example of that.

And just fyi, scientists have been creating artificial cells since the 60s, and now they can grow spare body parts like ears on the backs of mice.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


So wait...if scientists lack a certain knowledge, your auto-response is "god"?


You should really look up the definition of "god of the gaps" as your answer is a prime example of that.

And just fyi, scientists have been creating artificial cells since the 60s, and now they can grow spare body parts like ears on the backs of mice.


Ears on the backs of mice do not equal the creation of a complete human cell made from nothing,it only means that a cell from a human which God created has been introduced to the mouse, and as to your first statement,

It just like your auto-response in your first comment to me regarding objective evidence, yes it is true that my mind is capable of believing in things I cannot prove with objective evidence, just like there are things you cannot prove with objective evidence...... don't make me go there.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


As long as you realize your belief isn't based on logic/rationality it's all good...and you can believe whatever you want, it's a free country



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Ok. I have a question. Can any of you give me an example, of a find that would prove the theory of evolution wrong?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


It's classified as a theory because there's no evidence against it...so no, I can't


If there was evidence against it, it wouldn't be classified as a theory...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

More proof falsifying the theory of evolution:
ireport.cnn.com...

The State Government of Pennsylvania officially claim that the youngest rock of Pennsylvania is 180 million years old according to state geologists using the radiometric dating method.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Here is the concrete example that falsifies the theory of evolution--a Carboniferous human leg bone:
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
About the whole dating thing.. I suggest you read this..

Click


edit on 4-4-2011 by vasaga because: Link fix



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
About the whole dating thing.. I suggest you read this..

Click

They're talking about day-to-day variations over a 33-day cycle. Given that radiometric dating tools are used over the span of years, the day-to-day variations would normalize out.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by linliangtai
 

What you have there, is an example of what would falsify the theory of evolution in its current state (unless time travell was showed possible), if the claim made was scientifically backed up. This claim, however in your link is just a claim with no evidence at all backing it up..
edit on 4-4-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
96
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join